Can you actually formulate your own CD3 and/or CD4? (and don't ask me how in the world I know about those.) :) :) :)

If I started hearing hoofbeats in the ground, I'd quickly dust off my ear, and place an order for some color developing agents at Formulary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmr

I and a co-worker were talking about this a while ago. We phoned Dwayne's and they convincingly assured us that there are no plans to discontinue K14 processing in the forseeable future. They said if and when it does happen there will be considerable notice.

Can Dwayne's make their own CD6? :)

01-18-2007, 05:28 PM

copake_ham

To a considerable extent Kodachrome can be considered a "test case" regarding film as a niche market. While it's usage has dwindled considerably from its hey day - it retains a small, loyal following that apparently generates enough demand to convince Kodak to keep making it. Which in turn creates demand for Dwayne's to keep processing it.

Still, much as I loved it once, and still think its a great film, I've moved onto other products. I now favor Velvia for chromes and also shoot much more print film than I ever did before. But I'll always retain a fondness for K-chrome! ;)

01-18-2007, 06:28 PM

Photo Engineer

The developing agents CD3 and CD4 can be purchased commercially. CD6 cannot be purchased except through Kodak or an associated company AFAIK. The big problem would be getting the couplers. They are very rare and only made by/for Kodak.

See the patent, # posted elsewhere by Bent and Mowrey for Kodachrome.

And, BTW, Kodak vacated the patent, thereby donating it to the public.

PE

01-18-2007, 07:53 PM

dmr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

The developing agents CD3 and CD4 can be purchased commercially.

What I meant was, could a capable kitchen chemist, or even somebody with access to, say, a college chem lab, cook these from scratch? I understand that the CD3/CD4 are the real magic potions in the color developers. I've looked at some of the recipes, and this is really the only thing exotic in there.

I'm not a wet darkroom expert, but I know you can make a passable B&W developer from a number of things, Tylenol, coffee (soda? beer?) :) and it seems like most of the ingredients of color chemicals are common, except for the CD3/CD4.

I assume Fuji makes their own. Do they?

Quote:

And, BTW, Kodak vacated the patent, thereby donating it to the public.

Oh really? Kodachrome in the public domain, huh? :)

I just remembered a conversation from maybe a year or so ago on one of the boards, could have even been here, where they were talking about one of those old film processors, probably Rocky Mountain, maybe Film Rescue, trying to re-formulate the color developers and dyes for K12 so they could actually get color from that film again. I never heard if they were successful or not.

01-18-2007, 08:04 PM

r-s

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmr

Oh really? Kodachrome in the public domain, huh? :)

I'd think most if not all of the pertinent patents have long since lapsed. K14 is 1970s technology. Those patents have got to be at least 30 years old by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmr

I just remembered a conversation from maybe a year or so ago on one of the boards, could have even been here, where they were talking about one of those old film processors, probably Rocky Mountain, maybe Film Rescue, trying to re-formulate the color developers and dyes for K12 so they could actually get color from that film again. I never heard if they were successful or not.

There was recent discussion on the Kodachrome list, about a machine that Kodak owns the patent filing (I believe it's the "dry process" scanner they purchased from ASF, and then dropped all development on it).

This machine will allow the full color scanning of Kodachrome, using only a B&W developer.

It scans the three B&W negative layers, and builds a color image file from that data.

It uses a three dimensional scanning technique, so that it can scan each layer separately.

Since the process uses no color development at all, it can work with any kodachrome -- K14, K12, K10, and earlier -- in any format.

Unfortunately it appears that this machine has been buried, never to come to market (presuming it's the same ASF technology that was reported thusly shortly after Kodak's acquisition of the stuff).

I'd known about the machine, and I'd read the reports that said they would not be bringing it to market, but I had no idea of the Kodachrome implications, until I saw the patent info (the Kodachrome list archives should have the links if you're curious). The patent specifically mentions that it could be used for Kodachrome.

WRT Rocky Mountain, I read somewhere that they have their KLAB up for sale, for something like $45 grand.

01-18-2007, 09:23 PM

Photo Engineer

Two answers here.

1. CD3, CD4 and CD6 can be made by a competent organic chemist or even by an ordinary person with the right starting materials and the right procedures. IIRC, CD6 is made from CD4, but it has been 30+ years since I worked on it.

2. Making a 3D scan of a B&W Kodachrome is dependant on having developed it in the proper B&W developer to get a good balance of curves in the imaging layers. It also will not properly represent the grain or sharpness, and lastly, its digital.

PE

01-18-2007, 10:07 PM

r-s

Quote:

It also will not properly represent the grain or sharpness,

Wouldn't you think that the technology would improve with continued R&D?

Quote:

and lastly, its digital.

Yes, but it's also Kodachrome -- which means that there'd suddenly be a much larger market for Kodachrome. As I recall from the original articles about the ASF machine, it only took up a couple of square feet of floor space, and didn't need a water supply or drain. It used a goop-style developer similar to the stuff in the Polaroid pods (as I recall), and the film was scanned as the image formed, and then, the film was spooled up (each roll spliced to the previous), to be collected for recycling (silver recovery) when the machine was serviced every so often.

The customer would put his roll of film into the machine, which would then process and scan it, and then give him his images on CD and/or prints.

The intended market was people who needed their stuff fast, and it could be deployed to locations that could not support a minilab (no technician needed, etc.)

A machine like this, with the ability to turn every camera into a defacto "digital camera" (a digital camera with a very wide variety of "sensor upgrades" available to the user), could have extended the life cycle of silver photography indefinitely.

I think it made perfect marketing sense for an "all-digital" company to buy the rights to that sort of disruptive technology and ensure that it did not come to market. That's what I would have done if I was on a mission to supplant traditional photography with an "all-digital" replacement.

01-18-2007, 10:11 PM

r-s

Additional comment -- I don't see why this scanner could not have been used in a scenario in which the customer's film was not "eaten by the machine". Some advantages would be the ability to archive the actual film somewhere, and, the ability to rescan it later on, as the technology improved.

Naturally, this would require a complete (B&W) develop-fix-wash cycle (rather than develop-scan-recover silver), but I don't see that as a major obstacle.

Eventually, such a machine could be built at a price affordable to consumers (look at what the original CD drives cost!), making the home-processing of Kodachrome a reality for "the masses"!

01-18-2007, 10:17 PM

Photo Engineer

And, the automobile companies/oil companies/ insert favorite bad company are sitting on a gasoline additive/carburetor/insert other device that will give you 500 mpg.

Maybe the machine was a bust. IDK. Maybe it was too slow. Maybe there was no market? Kodachrome is not selling. Stocks are probably spoiling in the warehouse right as we speak. IDK.

Fuji used to make their version of Kodachrome. They stopped in the 80s when overall Kodachrome sales began to fall rapidly. They were smart, I guess.

Dynachrome made their version of Kodachrome. It was a very large plant not far from my home, and in spite of the fact that they made ISO 10 Kodachrome (the original) that everyone said they would prefer, they lost sales to the new Kodachrome 25. And, BTW this was not fake Kodachrome, it was real, made by real Kodak engineers with lots of know-how and backing. The promised customers didn't stick with them too long after the ISO 25 product came out.

No one can say until the dust settles, least of all us here.

PE

01-18-2007, 10:19 PM

Photo Engineer

Well, as an afterthought, IIRC, this machine was for C41 films primarily and the film was developed and then fixed or 'stabilzed'. The background unwanted image was ignored by the scanner which scanned the real color image.